Excellent interview and discussion! I am especially moved by your powerful statement: “If we take the least dependent person as our legal norm of a person, is everything else all about catching people up to that level of non-dependence, or is it about accommodating them as equal citizens where they are.”
What is behind our seemingly universal human desire to avoid dependence? Is it a fear of not being accepted or being deemed less worthy (less human)? Or maybe that we just don’t trust that others will be there if we are too much of a burden. Sadly, there is ample evidence of truth behind both of these fears.
I like how you made an effort to keep bringing the conversation back to how we in our present lives can intentionally encounter those in need, especially for people like me--childless, in my 20s, and in an environment where I rarely have to encounter someone in profound physical need. That's definitely something I reflect on.
I find myself having arguments with friends of mine who are very dedicated to the idea of an expansive welfare state, but who also basically believe that private charities shouldn't exist and that they shouldn't have to do anything personal to help those in need. In their minds, they want to pay higher taxes and in exchange be absolved of any responsibility towards, say, helping the homeless. And I've got to admit that I don't have a response that feels wholly satisfying--I usually respond by advocating for skepticism that concentrating that amount of power and responsibility in one entity is really a good idea at all. But there's an implicit argument on their part that goes something like this: to be a good citizen, all I need to do is pay my taxes and vote for the best candidates. I'm curious how other readers would respond to this definition of the citizen, and how best to advocate for a different model.
I'm also reminded, in a way, of our left-leaning politicians' particularly American way of trying to make the public believe that we can have a European-style welfare state without a European-style VAT. An example is Biden's promise that everything in the BBB Act be paid for without tax increases on those making under $400,000. What's left unsaid is that most of the big-ticket programs in the act are only funded partially by the feds, funded only for the first few years, or scheduled to phase in at the end of the budget period. In reality, keeping these programs permanently will require all of us to pay higher taxes, and if they are worth it, we must acknowledge that it's okay for all of us to have a little bit less so that we can pay for them. Just as we can't reasonably expect the government to be the only resource in caring for the poor, we also can't expect the ultrarich to be the only source of our safety net. In both cases, everyone has to do the work of caring for each other with our resources.
Excellent interview and discussion! I am especially moved by your powerful statement: “If we take the least dependent person as our legal norm of a person, is everything else all about catching people up to that level of non-dependence, or is it about accommodating them as equal citizens where they are.”
What is behind our seemingly universal human desire to avoid dependence? Is it a fear of not being accepted or being deemed less worthy (less human)? Or maybe that we just don’t trust that others will be there if we are too much of a burden. Sadly, there is ample evidence of truth behind both of these fears.
I like how you made an effort to keep bringing the conversation back to how we in our present lives can intentionally encounter those in need, especially for people like me--childless, in my 20s, and in an environment where I rarely have to encounter someone in profound physical need. That's definitely something I reflect on.
I find myself having arguments with friends of mine who are very dedicated to the idea of an expansive welfare state, but who also basically believe that private charities shouldn't exist and that they shouldn't have to do anything personal to help those in need. In their minds, they want to pay higher taxes and in exchange be absolved of any responsibility towards, say, helping the homeless. And I've got to admit that I don't have a response that feels wholly satisfying--I usually respond by advocating for skepticism that concentrating that amount of power and responsibility in one entity is really a good idea at all. But there's an implicit argument on their part that goes something like this: to be a good citizen, all I need to do is pay my taxes and vote for the best candidates. I'm curious how other readers would respond to this definition of the citizen, and how best to advocate for a different model.
I'm also reminded, in a way, of our left-leaning politicians' particularly American way of trying to make the public believe that we can have a European-style welfare state without a European-style VAT. An example is Biden's promise that everything in the BBB Act be paid for without tax increases on those making under $400,000. What's left unsaid is that most of the big-ticket programs in the act are only funded partially by the feds, funded only for the first few years, or scheduled to phase in at the end of the budget period. In reality, keeping these programs permanently will require all of us to pay higher taxes, and if they are worth it, we must acknowledge that it's okay for all of us to have a little bit less so that we can pay for them. Just as we can't reasonably expect the government to be the only resource in caring for the poor, we also can't expect the ultrarich to be the only source of our safety net. In both cases, everyone has to do the work of caring for each other with our resources.